It’s my understanding that Alabama, Mississippi and parts of southern Illinois are where the big money is re lawsuits. You missed the target.
Regards the OP, with any luck the “lawyer” in question will find out about Thai justice when he goes to Thailand for discovery. A little goes a long way there.
They also lost in civil court, because Rodney got a pretty big settlement, and then promptly failed to skip town once he collected the check, thus allowing himself to be pulled over everytime an LA spotted his white Hyuandai.
Look, I’m not saying that this shyster is doing anything other than trying to get some easy money, by filing this suit. But none of us were surprised by this, were we? Nope. But everyone seems shocked at my suggestion that he’d win in a jury trial. Has no one thought about the possibility of this being turned over on appeal? On 9/11 the shysters were filing lawsuits before the second plane hit, this guy’s waited a couple of months. Why? I’m certainly not to claim that it’s because he wanted to wait until a period of mourning. Nope. He was digging around looking for something so that this suit wouldn’t immediately get tossed out on it’s ear. I also don’t think that the judge is going to throw this out on it’s face (he might toss it out on a technicality, but like the judge in the “McDonald’s made me fat” case, he’ll advise the shyster on what he needs to do to have a successful filing). Why? Because the judge knows this is a test case, and unless there’s a total bitch slapping of the shyster, others are going to attempt some variation of this. So, the judge is going to let this go to trial, and if the shyster’s able to play on the jury’s sympathies in just the right manner, the jury will award billions. Upon appeal, however, the appellate court will promptly bitch slap the shyster so hard that everyone else who is thinking about doing something similar will quickly give up.
At least unlike you, I’m worthless sometimes instead of worthless always, like you. You’re so predictable. If it’s not liberals, it’s Californians and New Yorkers, if not state-aimed screed, it’s Lawyers.
So I’ll parrot your line, fuck you.
Would it make more sense to sue the hoel chains in question? They (knowingly) built hotels near the beaches, exposing their customers to the (known) dangers of tsunami waves.
Second: why wouln’t this suit be heard by the World Court (at the Hague)? I don’t see how the USA should be involved in any such litigation.
Are tsunamis considered (in the insurance lingo) to be “acts of God”? If so, how can there be any reasonable grounds for a lawsuit?
Is this question serious, or am I wooshed?
No international court, nor the International court of justice (competent for disputes between countries, like for instance border disputes), nor the International criminal court (competent for war crimes or crimes against humanity) is competent for civil liability resulting from a tsunami.
They could be if the USA had deliberatly caused the tsunami by using a secret weapon, for instance.